1000. BITS ON DISCIPLINE -154
646. Departmental Enquiries are quasi-judicial in nature
The departmental inquiries have been held to be quasi-judicial proceedings (Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364) intended to give the public servant an opportunity - “...... if that be his case, that he is not guilty of any misconduct or merit any punishment at all and also that the particular punishment proposed to be given is much more drastic and severe than he deserves...” [High Commissioner v I.M. Lall, AIR 1948 PC 121]. Therefore Principles of Natural Justice apply to them.
647. Implications of the Departmental Proceedings being Quasi-judicial
The following implications flow from the far-reaching decision of the Supreme Court that departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature :
i. such proceedings can be initiated only by the authority i.e., the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in this behalf by the rules;
ii. the Principles of Natural Justice have full applicability to these proceedings. In other words, not only the authorities taking the decision should be impartial but they must also afford a reasonable opportunity of defence to the employee;
iii. the proceedings must be held in accordance with prescribed procedure;
iv. the report of inquiry and also the final decision must be based on the evidence adduced during the course of inquiry. Nothing can be taken into account against the employee unless he was given due notice of it and an opportunity to rebut it;
v. the inquiring authority is bound to consider all relevant material put forth during the inquiry. He cannot ignore any material part of it.
vi. the inquiry officer enjoins independence of functioning and is not subject to directions of the disciplinary authority or anyone else except on routine things as expediting the inquiry;
vii. the report of inquiry must be a reasoned document containing an analysis of the evidence and the findings logically flowing from it;
viii. where the inquiry is held by an officer other than the disciplinary authority, i a copy of report of inquiry is supplied to the charged employee for his submissions, if any;
ix. the disciplinary authority must apply his own mind to the matter. He cannot act under orders or directions of someone else. No doubt, he may take advice but final decision must be his own;
x. however, where the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with the inquiry officer he is under an obligation to give his reasons and to afford an opportunity to explain the same, to the charged employee;
xi. the final order must be a speaking order, i.e., containing reasons for the conclusions reached;
xii. the order, once made, is not subject to modification by the same authority;
xiii. the order by the disciplinary authority cannot be revised by any higher authority except by prescribed appellate, revisionary or review authority and that too within the parameters of the statutory rules; and
xiv. lastly, but probably the most important, the renowned dictum of Lord Hewart “justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seem to be done.” The charged officer must have a feeling that he had a fair deal.
These implications underline the fact that the disciplinary authorities have to meticulously comply with provisions of the statutory rules which govern the particular case and also follow the principles of natural justice to the extent they apply.
648. DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRIES
If the oral evidence collected during preliminary inquiry is to be relied upon during regular proceedings, the charged officer should be supplied with copies of such statements so that he can effectively cross-examine the prosecution witnesses (State of M.P. v. Chintaman, AIR 1961 SC 1623; State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar, AIR 1963 SC 1622].
649. Action on Report of Preliminary Inquiry
If the preliminary inquiry does not disclose any fault or misconduct on the part of any employee, no further action may be required. But if some misconduct or deliberate dereliction comes to the notice of the disciplinary authority, it becomes necessary to take recourse to departmental action against the erring employee(s). Sometimes the lapse on the part of the employee(s) may amount to a criminal offence as well. In such a case, criminal proceedings shall also be necessary.
650. Many a time, minor penalty action may be preferable
The Government of India have issued instructions that the Administrative Department/ Competent Authority/CVC should study the allegations more carefully and resort to minor penalty proceedings instead of initiating major penalty proceedings, where the circumstances involve minor infringements or cases of procedural irregularities
(DOP&TO.M. No. 142/5/2003- 4VD.I, dated 6.4.2004).
Post a Comment